Research Participants' Perceptions of the Certificate of Confidentiality's Assurances and Limitations

A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research

Empirical data regarding payments to participants in research is limited. This lack of information constrains our understanding of the effectiveness of payments to achieve scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion. We conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov to determine what information researchers provide regarding payment. We extracted data from HIV (n = 101) and NIMH-funded studies (n = 65) listed on clinicaltrials.gov that had publicly posted a consent form. Using a manifest content analysis approach, we then coded the language regarding payment from the consent document and, where available, protocol for purpose and method of the payment. Although not part of our original planned analysis, the tax-related information that emerged from our content analysis of the consent form language provided additional insights into researcher payment practices. Accordingly, we also recorded whether the payment section mentioned social security numbers (or other tax identification number) in connection with payments and whether it made any statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service or the tax status of payments. We found studies commonly offered payment, but did not distinguish between the purposes for which payment may be offered (i.e., compensation, reimbursement, incentive, or appreciation). We also found studies that excluded some participants from receiving payment or treated them differently from other participants in the study. Differential treatment was typically linked to US tax laws and other legal requirements. A number of US studies also discussed the need to collect Social Security numbers and income reporting based on US tax laws. Collectively, these practices disadvantage some participants and may interfere with efforts to conduct more inclusive research.

Protecting Participants in Genomic Research: Understanding the "Web of Protections" Afforded by Federal and State Law

Researchers now commonly collect biospecimens for genomic analysis together with information from mobile devices and electronic health records. This rich combination of data creates new opportunities for understanding and addressing important health issues, but also intensifies challenges to privacy and confidentiality. Here, we elucidate the "web" of legal protections for precision medicine research by integrating findings from qualitative interviews with structured legal research and applying them to realistic research scenarios involving various privacy threats.

New and Improved? 21st Century Cures Act Revisions to Certificates of Confidentiality

Certificates of Confidentiality ("Certificates") are a federal legal tool designed to protect sensitive, identifiable research data from compelled disclosure. Congress first authorized their use in 1970 to facilitate research on illegal drug use. The scope of their use was later expanded to cover mental health research and then again to apply broadly to identifiable, sensitive research data, regardless of topic. Certificates can be critical to enabling conduct of essential research on sensitive topics, such as effective interventions to curb the opioid epidemic or reduce HIV transmission among minority youth. Nevertheless, there have been criticisms about Certificates and their use on several grounds. For example, researchers and institutional review boards ("IRBs") may lack sufficient knowledge about them and, therefore, may not consider using them in studies for which they would be appropriate. In contrast to other protections, such as Department of Justice Privacy Certificates, Certificate protections were not automatically extended to these studies, but instead required an application. In addition, the concept of identifiable data had not kept up with technological changes that may allow for reidentification of data previously considered unidentifiable. Although a researcher who obtained a Certificate could use it to resist a legal demand for identifiable data, little was known about the actual effectiveness of the protection provided. The 21^st Century Cures Act substantially revises the Certificates authorizing statute, and many of the changes are directly responsive to the criticisms that have been raised. Significantly, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") must issue Certificate protection to federally funded research involving identifiable, sensitive research data, and the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") will automatically include such protections to research it funds. Non-federally funded researchers can continue to apply for Certificate protection. The definition of identifiable has been expanded to include data "for which there is at least a very small risk" of identification. Certificates will now not only protect against compelled disclosure, but also render protected data inadmissible in legal proceedings without participant consent. In addition, voluntary disclosure is no longer authorized, but there is now a broad exception for disclosure as required by federal, state, and local laws. In this paper, based on our previous research on Certificates, we critically evaluate the 21^st Century Cures Act's Certificates revisions and their positive and negative impact on the dual goals of facilitating important, sensitive research while maximally protecting individual research participants.

A randomized study of the effect of anonymity, quasi-anonymity, and Certificates of Confidentiality on postpartum women's disclosure of sensitive information

BACKGROUND

Under-reporting of substance use and other sensitive information is a substantial threat to internal study validity, particularly during the perinatal period. Anonymous approaches are associated with greater disclosure but are incompatible with longitudinal follow-up. Alternative approaches include use of a U.S. Federal Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) and quasi-anonymous methods, in which there is no link between name and data. However, the relative effect of these procedures on disclosure is unknown. This randomized study was designed to evaluate the effects of consent condition (anonymous, quasi-anonymous, CoC, and traditional confidentiality) on disclosure of sensitive information among postpartum women.

METHODS

Participants were 200 postpartum, primarily African-American women who were randomly assigned to one of the four consent conditions and completed a brief computer-delivered assessment of alcohol and drug use, sexual risk, intimate partner violence, and emotional distress.

RESULTS

Participants in the anonymous and quasi-anonymous conditions disclosed significantly more sensitive information than those in the traditional consent condition. In contrast, no advantage in overall disclosure was observed for the CoC condition. This result was largely consistent across specific content areas with the exception of emotional distress, disclosure of which was unrelated to consent condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of a CoC has limited impact on disclosure, the quasi-anonymous method may increase disclosure to a similar extent as full anonymity. Quasi-anonymous approaches should be considered when under-reporting is likely, a context in which the disadvantages of this approach must be balanced against its advantages.

Research Participants' Understanding of and Reactions to Certificates of Confidentiality

BACKGROUND

Certificates of Confidentiality are intended to facilitate participation in critical public health research by protecting against forced disclosure of identifying data in legal proceedings, but little is known about the effect of Certificate descriptions in consent forms.

METHODS

To gain preliminary insights, we conducted qualitative interviews with 50 HIV-positive individuals in Durham, North Carolina to explore their subjective understanding of Certificate descriptions and whether their reactions differed based on receiving a standard versus simplified description.

RESULTS

Most interviewees were neither reassured nor alarmed by Certificate information, and most said it would not influence their willingness to participate or provide truthful information. However, compared with those receiving the simplified description, more who read the standard description said it raised new concerns, that their likelihood of participating would be lower, and that they might be less forthcoming. Most interviewees said they found the Certificate description clear, but standard-group participants often found particular words and phrases confusing, while simplified-group participants more often questioned the information's substance.

CONCLUSIONS

Valid informed consent requires comprehension and voluntariness. Our findings highlight the importance of developing consent descriptions of Certificates and other confidentiality protections that are simple and accurate. These qualitative results provide rich detail to inform a larger, quantitative study that would permit further rigorous comparisons.

Biobanking, consent, and certificates of confidentiality: does the ANPRM muddy the water?

In its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed substantial changes to how biospecimen research is treated under the regulations governing human subjects research. Currently, much of this research can be conducted without consent because it may not be considered "human subjects" research, is considered exempt, or consent may be waived. Responding to criticisms that scientific changes have made biospecimen research riskier than contemplated when the Common Rule was last amended, the ANPRM proposes to require written consent for biospecimen research, even if they have been stripped of identifiers or initially collected for a non-research purpose. The ANPRM's recognition of these risks is consistent with relatively recent NIH recommendations that research projects involving genetics, genomics, or biospecimen repositories should consider getting a Certificate of Confidentiality to provide additional protections to participants where breach of confidentiality is typically the primary risk. Ironically, the ANPRM proposals may make it more difficult to provide these protections. Our paper explores the implications of the conflicting requirements of the Certificate and the ANPRM proposals and makes recommendations for achieving the dual goals of appropriate consent and adequate confidentiality protections.

Trust in health research relationships: accounts of human subjects

TRUST IS FUNDAMENTAL in health research, yet there is little empirical evidence that explores the meaning of trust from the perspective of human subjects. The analysis presented here focuses on how human subjects talked about trust in the in-depth interviews. It emerged from the accounts that trust could not be assumed in the research setting, rather it was portrayed as a dynamic concept, built and easily broken, characterized by reciprocity and negotiation. Human subjects were ambivalent about who, when, what, and how much to trust in the research endeavor. This paper adds a fresh perspective to the literature on trust, and so offers a currently neglected, and little understood dimension to the discourse around health research ethics.

Institutional review boards' use and understanding of certificates of confidentiality

Certificates of Confidentiality, issued by agencies of the U.S. government, are regarded as an important tool for meeting ethical and legal obligations to safeguard research participants' privacy and confidentiality. By shielding against forced disclosure of identifying data, Certificates are intended to facilitate research on sensitive topics critical to the public's health. Although Certificates are potentially applicable to an extensive array of research, their full legal effect is unclear, and little is known about stakeholders' views of the protections they provide. To begin addressing this challenge, we conducted a national survey of institutional review board (IRB) chairs, followed by telephone interviews with selected chairs, to learn more about their familiarity with and opinions about Certificates; their institutions' use of Certificates; policies and practices concerning when Certificates are required or recommended; and the role Certificates play in assessments of research risk. Overall, our results suggest uncertainty about Certificates among IRB chairs. On most objective knowledge questions, most respondents chose the incorrect answer or 'unsure'. Among chairs who reported more familiarity with Certificates, composite opinion scores calculated based on five survey questions were evenly distributed among positive, neutral/middle, and negative views. Further, respondents expressed a variety of ideas about the appropriate use of Certificates, what they are intended to protect, and their effect on research risk. Nevertheless, chairs who participated in our study commonly viewed Certificates as a potentially valuable tool, frequently describing them as an 'extra layer' of protection. These findings lead to several practical observations concerning the need for more stakeholder education about Certificates, consideration of Certificates for a broader range of studies, the importance of remaining vigilant and using all tools available to protect participants' confidentiality, and the need for further empirical investigation of Certificates' effect on researchers and research participants.

IRB decision-making with imperfect knowledge: a framework for evidence-based research ethics review

Here we describe the five steps of evidence-based practice as applied to research ethics review and apply these steps to three exemplar dilemmas: incentive payments in substance abuse research; informed consent for biobanking; and placebo-controlled trials involving pregnant women in order to demonstrate the potential of empirical data to inform and improve IRB decision-making.